John Harvard

[Supply, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member attentively. I find his remarks about partisan politics in the decision with respect to Chilliwack to be offensive, and I really mean offensive. This is not partisan politics.

The announcement to close air command was made well over a year ago. I think it was in the 1995 budget. Where is air command?

It is in the riding of Winnipeg St. James, which I have the honour of representing. It has nothing to do with partisan politics whatsoever.

Sometimes we have to make tough decisions. Sometimes they come down hard and these decisions are difficult for members of Parliament, be they Liberal, Reform, Bloc or whatever.

In addition to air command being closed, naval command was closed. And where is naval command located? It is located in Halifax, Nova Scotia. As far as I know there are not too many Reform MPs from the province of Nova Scotia. In fact, I do not think there are very many Conservative or Bloc MPs. They are all Liberal.

The fact is this government has a responsibility to run the armed forces and sometimes that means there has to be reorganization. Sometimes it means closing air command, sometimes it means closing naval or army command in the province of Quebec. This has nothing to do with partisan politics.

I suggest the viewers watching this program, having listened to the hon. member from British Columbia make that kind of charge, will be very upset hearing those kinds of allegations because they are totally without foundation.

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

Not reduced.

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I think we should set the record straight. In 1992 the Reform Party had an opportunity to support major Senate change in the Charlottetown accord. Of course the Reform Party campaigned against it. So much for the Reform Party's credibility on that issue.

On the motion brought forward by the hon. member, our friends opposite are mixing two issues. One is the issue of Senate accountability and the other is the issue of the future of the Senate. I do not think there is anyone in the House of Commons who does not want major change when it comes to the Senate. I certainly want major change. I am not even too sure whether we should have a bicameral legislature.

The other issue-and the member should not be mixing the two-is the issue of accountability. I would be much more impressed if the hon. member, a number of months ago, had simply walked down the halls of Parliament to the Senate, presented himself to the Senate's finance committee, and demanded a change in the way the Senate accounts to Parliament and to the Canadian people. When he did what he did in trying to force the Senate's hand through the committee on government operations, it looked like grandstanding. It looked like he was trying to put on a show.

For all intents and purposes the other place is autonomous and separate from this Chamber. If we want greater accountability from the other place, which is what I want, we have to follow proper procedures. This motion and what the hon. member tried to do in the last few months only get the senators' hackles up. If we want to do this properly and with credibility, we go to the Senate and force it to hold a hearing to deal with this question. We should not do it the way the hon. member has tried to do it. It simply does not have credibility and will not work. It has been shown that in the last few months his attempts have fallen flat. He got absolutely nowhere with senators because they have their pride whether or not it is wrongly placed. Those are my comments.

[Somalia Inquiry, September 17th, 1996]

There is no question.

[Criminal Code, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member as well. It seems the position she and her party take really shows contempt for jurors.

It is jurors who make these decisions. It is not done by lawyers, bureaucrats, psychologists, professional people. Decisions relating to reducing the ineligible period of parole are made by so-called ordinary Canadians. They are people from the community, down the street, neighbours and so on.

Why does she show so little faith in fellow Canadians?

[Oceans Act, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Mackenzie for his presentation.

Let me repeat for the hon. member this is a complicated case which deals with two very different issues. On one hand, there were allegations of discrimination involving two subcontractors, Colonial Building and Pro-Tech Restoration. Fuller Construction is the main contractor on this project.

When the Department of Public Works and Government Services learned of the allegations of discrimination on the job site, it immediately advised the general contractor, Fuller, that the anti-discrimination clause would have to be respected.

In this case the contractor accepted his responsibilities for the conduct of his subcontractor, Colonial. A settlement was negotiated between Colonial and Mr. Wolf and Ms. Raney. This agreement was signed by all parties involved and therefore fully resolves the issue of discrimination.

Even though this dispute was resolved through an agreement signed by all parties, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services wants to do more. She wants to do whatever is within her power to ensure this kind of situation can be dealt with more quickly and more efficiently in the future.

For this reason the minister has instructed her officials to review the terms of the department's contacts to ensure corrective action can be taken against contractors who have violated laws protecting individuals from discrimination and to ensure the department can quickly deal with any allegations of discrimination which may arise.

The department is also revising the terms of its contracts to ensure the non-discrimination clause also applies to subcontractors. This is in addition to asking Labour Canada to strengthen the anti-discrimination clause so this type of situation can be handled better in the future.

An interdepartmental team has been put in place to explore practices and procedures to enforce the government's commitment to fairness in the workplace. The government strongly believes no one should have to suffer discrimination and we are committed to doing whatever we can to eliminate it.

[Supply, May 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I was trying to point out the Reform Party would like one day to be a national party. It says someday it would like to govern the country. Yet there is hardly a day when members of the Reform Party do not try to sully the province of Quebec. Not a day goes by that they do not try to sully francophones How do they ever expect to govern the country when they tarnish and besmirch and sully the citizens of the province of Quebec? There is no way a they can govern a country if they choose to attack one group of people day in and day out.

These people who pretend to be such model democrats should actually be very ashamed of themselves for that kind of behaviour.

The member for Okanagan Centre talked about wanting to adjust the economy. Of course we want to adjust the economy for the better. He does not say anything about the job creation that has taken place since the fall of 1993. It never crossed his lips that 636,000 jobs have been created since the fall of 1993. He does not mention that whatsoever.

There have to be changes. He talked about the country only being only eighth in productivity. Maybe we are only eighth in productivity but we are trying to be number one and we are aiming that way. He said the deficit was too high. Has he noticed the deficit is coming down?

[Supply, May 30th, 1996]

Do you want to listen?

[Supply, May 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon what we got from the member for Okanagan Centre is the usual mantra, the usual tirade, the usual fearmongering from the Reform Party and the usual attacks on certain Canadians, as aboriginals and Quebecers.

Members of the House know I hold no grief for separatists and separatism. Members of the Reform Party go around-

[Supply, May 30th, 1996]

I want to hear more.